While I was waiting for them, I added some linear regression lines to the original graphs and came up with some very interesting results.
The first thing to notice is that for Obama, the hand counted totals regression is right on the expected line. This means that he scored exactly as the polls predicted when votes were hand-counted. The machine-counted totals regression has a very different slope, because he got many fewer votes than expected in the small and medium towns, but scored according to expectations in the larger ones. This is pretty unimpeachable if it holds up when I add the missing data.
Not surprisingly, both regressions for Clinton are above the line, and the machine-counted totals regression is almost exactly shifted up from the expected line. She beat the polls consistently, independent of voting method. The straight shifting up of the machine-counted totals is odd, but not terribly worrisome.
Again, the pattern for Edwards is a mirror image of Obama's. The slopes of the regressions differ per voting method, and the machine-counted totals for small towns seem elevated.
Now, I'll go plug in the new data.